<p>
</p>
<p>Despite being the only meaningful part of Post Number 2, this is the simplest way to “explain” why Wellesley has been able to maintain its ranking. Since most of the scores are directly reflected by the last year’s rankings, Wellesley continues to benefit from the historical and geographical cronyism that translates in a very high Peer Assessment score, not to mention the obvious lack of competence and integrity of the responders. The same “bias” that also benefits the former members of the Seven Sisters. Probably a bit of a soft spot for the all-female girls and underdogs! </p>
<p>In addition, the lower selectivity indexes for all-girls schools are entirely masked by the lower expected graduation rates. In a nutshell, a school that shows lower scores will be expected to have a smaller graduation rate. The points “lost” by Wellesley in the selectivity index are easily recovered when the school exceeds its lower expected rate. In this case, it is beneficial to report lower standardized scores. Funny how that works!</p>
<p>Lastly, the impact of having much higher admit rates than peer schools is trivial as it accounts for only 1.5 percent of the total score. This is why the stratosphericly high admission rates in the ED rounds at a number of all-female schools have little impact in the USNews report. However, this is also where the USNews is effective as an astute observer would uncover the great benefit of applying at a highly ranked school in the most beneficial way.</p>
<p>In the end, the USNews report is what it is. While it offers a wealth of information (such as the selectivity ratio) the final ranking is highly suspect as it continues to mostly rely on highly subjective criteria and continues to turn a blind eye to the fact that the responders to the survey play games with numbers, reward their friends, and punish their foes by filling the PA survey in whimsical ways. The USNews also continues to reward schools that provide incomplete and misleading information (read Middlebury.)</p>
<p>In the end, however, it does not matter at all. The facts that all-female schools “look” better in the USNews report than they probably should and that colleges such as Harvey Mudd have been crucified by asinine criteria should have NO impact on the applicants as their pools are vastly different. Simply stated, there is hardly any overlap between the applicants to Smith, Wellesley, et al, and applicants to Harvey Mudd. </p>
<p>People who know the schools do also know the differences. On the other hand, people who build applications based on rankings and prestige might be misled.</p>